The U.S Supreme Court revealed a disposition on Wednesday that seems favorable to states, companies and trade associations striving to temporarily impede a rule set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This rule seeks to decrease air pollution discharged by power plants as well as other industrial facilities in 23 states, which prefer not to alter their emissions policies. The duration of the oral arguments lasted approximately an hour and a half, during which conservative Justices on the bench expressed concerns over the approach the EPA had utilized in the activation of the rule.
At the core of the case, is a law known as the “good neighbor” statute included in the Clean Air Act. It necessitates that the “upwind” states diminish emissions which impact the air quality in the “downwind” states. The EPA laid down novel air-quality standards concerning ozone pollution, that can induce significant health issues at elevated levels, back in 2015. The newly minted EPA standards prompted an obligation for the states to present plans indicating how they would adhere to these standards, focusing in particular on reducing emissions impacting the quality of air in downwind states.
The dispute that forms the epicenter of this case stems from last year’s decision by the EPA to reject the plans submitted by 21 states, none of which proposed any readjustments to their emissions strategies. Following the rejection of the state plans, the EPA outlined its own plan for those states and included two other states which had not submitted their plans. Before the activation of the EPA’s plan in August last year, three states, Ohio, Indiana, and Virginia, presented their objections to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, along with several companies and trade associations who were similarly affected by the plan.
The Supreme Court Justices divided upon party lines concerning this issue. While the conservative justices expressed skepticism over the EPA’s process, the court’s liberal justices queried the wisdom of blocking the rule before any lower court had the opportunity to offer a judgment.
The final verdict is expected to be delivered by the summer. For the full context and detailed overview of the case, read the complete report here.